Do I need a chiropractor or physio?

Soldato
Joined
16 Nov 2002
Posts
11,265
Location
The Moon
Right hope this doesn't breach the medical advice rules here but ive had a pain in my neck and shoulders for quite a while which feels like it needs to "crack" or snap and gives me pain in my shoulders and neck if I move my head in particular ways.

I'm looking at getting this addressed but unsure if a physio would be the best port of call or if a chiropractor might be the best place. Have heard of chiropractors being able to do magical things but can't decide who would be best to see?!
 
My first thoughts would always be an experienced and wel regarded physio. They should hopefully be able to treat the symptoms, identify the root cause and provide you with the knowledge to stop it from happening again.
 
Concur with the above poster that you should visit a good physio as a first port of call. I've been to see chiropractors and physios over the years and both have their place. Physio sessions lasted 30-40 mins whereas the chiropractor sessions were a lot shorter and more violent!
 
Doctors will refer you to the muskeletal centre, they will probabaly send you to the Phisio first before anything

Chiropractors are good, but phisio is always first, if you feel then need after a few sessions then by all means go and see a chiropractor


Ive got problems with my back, I went to see a Chiropractor before phisio as the doctors didn't send me to one straight away and I knew a chiro would help and It did
 
Physio. Chiropractors can be a quick fix but if used long term can cause more problems than they solve. Physios tend to take longer to fix a problem but they do tend to fix it.
 
Always a physiotherapist.

this

Chiropractors/spine wizards are homeopath-tier quacks - stick to the Physios.

Even if you get a 'good' Chiropractor who realises he's wasted years learning a mostly useless profession and only now treats back pain he's still not offering anything above what a physio can offer.

On the other hand physios are the real deal, properly trained medical professionals not 'alternative medicine' nut jobs.
 
read this for further info on these quacks:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/apr/19/controversiesinscience-health

This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let's be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, "99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae". In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.
 
Back
Top Bottom